通过批判伦理研究反对认识论排斥,支持社会正义

K. Stuart, M. Shay
{"title":"通过批判伦理研究反对认识论排斥,支持社会正义","authors":"K. Stuart, M. Shay","doi":"10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.CH009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The dominance of neoliberalism in the west such as Australia and the UK and its insistence on impact measurement can lead researchers into an unquestioning adoption of scientific methods of measurement and data collection. We argue that if methods are not appropriate for the participants or context they are likely to reproduce existing societal inequities and positions of marginalisation and powerlessness. The theoretical position for fit-for-purpose research and evaluation tools, and specifically for social science methods is put forward theoretically and substantiated with cases drawn from diverse communities in Australia and the UK. Further, we will use autoethnography to share our experiences to argue that any research or evaluation endeavour should have as many benefits for the participants as for the researchers and wider stakeholders, a measure we argue should be the acid test for research ethics. The implications of these findings for researchers, evaluators, practitioners and policy makers are drawn out.","PeriodicalId":275559,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Countering Epistemological Exclusion Through Critical-Ethical Research to Support Social Justice\",\"authors\":\"K. Stuart, M. Shay\",\"doi\":\"10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.CH009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The dominance of neoliberalism in the west such as Australia and the UK and its insistence on impact measurement can lead researchers into an unquestioning adoption of scientific methods of measurement and data collection. We argue that if methods are not appropriate for the participants or context they are likely to reproduce existing societal inequities and positions of marginalisation and powerlessness. The theoretical position for fit-for-purpose research and evaluation tools, and specifically for social science methods is put forward theoretically and substantiated with cases drawn from diverse communities in Australia and the UK. Further, we will use autoethnography to share our experiences to argue that any research or evaluation endeavour should have as many benefits for the participants as for the researchers and wider stakeholders, a measure we argue should be the acid test for research ethics. The implications of these findings for researchers, evaluators, practitioners and policy makers are drawn out.\",\"PeriodicalId\":275559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.CH009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research in the Age of Anthropocene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5317-5.CH009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

新自由主义在澳大利亚和英国等西方国家的主导地位,以及它对影响测量的坚持,可能会导致研究人员毫无疑问地采用科学的测量和数据收集方法。我们认为,如果方法不适合参与者或背景,它们可能会重现现有的社会不平等和边缘化和无能为力的地位。适合目的的研究和评估工具,特别是社会科学方法的理论地位是从理论上提出的,并以来自澳大利亚和英国不同社区的案例为依据。此外,我们将使用自己的民族志来分享我们的经验,以证明任何研究或评估努力都应该对参与者和研究人员以及更广泛的利益相关者有同样多的好处,我们认为这应该是对研究伦理的严峻考验。这些发现对研究人员、评估人员、从业人员和政策制定者的影响被描绘出来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Countering Epistemological Exclusion Through Critical-Ethical Research to Support Social Justice
The dominance of neoliberalism in the west such as Australia and the UK and its insistence on impact measurement can lead researchers into an unquestioning adoption of scientific methods of measurement and data collection. We argue that if methods are not appropriate for the participants or context they are likely to reproduce existing societal inequities and positions of marginalisation and powerlessness. The theoretical position for fit-for-purpose research and evaluation tools, and specifically for social science methods is put forward theoretically and substantiated with cases drawn from diverse communities in Australia and the UK. Further, we will use autoethnography to share our experiences to argue that any research or evaluation endeavour should have as many benefits for the participants as for the researchers and wider stakeholders, a measure we argue should be the acid test for research ethics. The implications of these findings for researchers, evaluators, practitioners and policy makers are drawn out.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信